Outrage As Democrat Compares Birth To Murder Costs

United States flag with Democratic Party donkey symbol. — Democrat round button on an American flag

Colorado Democrat Julie McCluskie faces fierce backlash after suggesting the state could save money by funding abortions instead of births under Medicaid, igniting a firestorm over the ethical implications of placing dollar values on human lives.

Key Insights

Colorado Senate Bill 183 would require Medicaid and public employee health plans to cover abortion services, implementing voter-approved Amendment 79.
The bill’s co-sponsor Julie McCluskie explicitly framed abortion funding as a cost-saving measure, stating “a birth is more expensive than an abortion.”
The projected annual cost for covering abortions is nearly $5.9 million, supposedly offset by “averted births.”
Critics argue the bill reduces human life to a budget calculation and underestimates the true costs of abortion procedures.
The legislation would take effect in 2026 and aims to reduce reliance on federal reimbursements for reproductive healthcare.

Fiscal Arguments Spark Ethical Debate

Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie’s defense of the state’s proposed abortion funding bill has drawn sharp criticism after she repeatedly emphasized financial benefits as a primary justification for the legislation. During legislative discussions, McCluskie made the controversial case that abortion services would ultimately save taxpayer money by preventing births that would otherwise occur. The Democrat co-sponsored Senate Bill 183, which would require Medicaid and Child Health Plan Plus to cover abortion services following the passage of Amendment 79.

“That savings comes from the averted births that will not occur, because abortions happened instead. A birth is more expensive than an abortion, so the savings comes in Medicaid births that will not occur,” stated McCluskie during discussions about the bill’s financial impact.

Unbelievable! Said it outloud! Abortion save the state money,so we should have the state pay for all abortions.Sad day in Colorado. https://t.co/JgPkClXCcf

— James Barry (@JamesMBarry) March 26, 2025

The Numbers Behind The Controversy

According to fiscal analyses, the bill would cost approximately $5.9 million annually to cover abortion services through Medicaid and other state plans. However, McCluskie and other supporters claim these costs would be offset by savings from what they term “averted births.” The fiscal note projects that more than 333,000 women enrolled in Medicaid or Child Health Plan Plus would potentially seek abortion care annually, though critics question this estimate as unrealistically high for a state with Colorado’s population.

“This bill will actually decrease costs for our Healthcare Policy and Financing Department, our Medicaid expenditures in both this year and out years, as the savings from averted births outweigh the cost of covering reproductive health care for all Coloradans,” said Julie McCluskie.

The legislation implements Amendment 79, which established a constitutional right to abortion in Colorado after approval by 62% of voters. In addition to Medicaid coverage, the bill requires state employee insurance plans to include abortion services. The projected implementation date is set for 2026, with supporters claiming it will reduce reliance on federal reimbursements for reproductive healthcare services.

Pushback From Multiple Fronts

Critics from both conservative and moderate circles have expressed alarm at the framing of abortion as a cost-saving measure. Even some abortion rights supporters have questioned the wisdom of justifying healthcare access primarily on financial grounds. The Colorado Catholic Conference argues that the fiscal note significantly underestimates the true cost of abortion procedures, particularly late-term abortions which can cost substantially more than the figures used in projections.

“The fiscal note drastically underestimates the cost of abortion, especially late abortion,” she said. Vessely estimates the average late-trimester abortion cost around $3,000.

Some healthcare advocates have expressed discomfort with the cost-benefit analysis approach, suggesting it undermines more principled arguments for reproductive healthcare. “The premise that insurance coverage for abortion care is a societal good because it saves money on births doesn’t feel right to me,” said healthcare advocate Teter. “Access to health care is good always.” Other critics point to potential long-term demographic and economic impacts, arguing that policies discouraging births could eventually create workforce shortages and undermine government programs dependent on future taxpayers.

Legislative Progress and Political Context

Senate Bill 183 has already passed the Senate and cleared the House Health and Human Services Committee. The legislation comes during President Trump’s administration, which has largely maintained a pro-life position, creating tension between federal and state reproductive health policies. Bill sponsor Senator Garcia emphasized this dynamic in a statement supporting the legislation, noting, “To further reduce federal interference, our legislation reduces the state’s reliance on federal reimbursement for reproductive health care.”

The bill represents Colorado’s continued momentum toward expanded abortion access following the 2022 passage of the Reproductive Health Equity Act and the 2024 approval of Amendment 79. While Democrats maintain majority control of the Colorado legislature, the bill has drawn sharp partisan divisions, with Republicans uniformly opposing the measure on both fiscal and moral grounds. The legislation is expected to reach the governor’s desk in the coming weeks, where it will likely be signed into law despite the growing controversy.